Hi, At the request of Neil I'm adding version numbering to the Yhc build process. What version number should we start at? Currently Yhi says it's version 1.0 while Yhc says 'yhc version XP'. Both of these seem a little odd to me - I have no idea what version XP means, and are we really at 1.0 state? Andrew
Hi
At the request of Neil I'm adding version numbering to the Yhc build process. What version number should we start at?
0.7.<number of darcs patches> seems reasonable. Not quite ready for a 1.0, but not a completely new 0.1.
Currently Yhi says it's version 1.0 A default picked by Tom
while Yhc says 'yhc version XP'. A joke by me :)
Thanks Neil
On 10/20/06, Neil Mitchell
At the request of Neil I'm adding version numbering to the Yhc build process. What version number should we start at?
0.7.<number of darcs patches> seems reasonable. Not quite ready for a 1.0, but not a completely new 0.1.
I was going to go with 0.7.0-<number of patches>. If you compile it yourself (i.e. not a buildbot) then it appears as 0.7.0-<number of patches>-custom. It is quite possible we might want to make a minor point release, so having the ability to have 0.7.1 seems sensible. Andrew
I have pushed the patches to give us a monotically increasing version number, however there is problem with counting the number of darcs patches to give a version number. My PC says I'm building version 0.7.0-275 while the buildbots are on 0.7.0-27 - this is because I checked my tree out before the last time the tree was tagged. Does anyone know of a way to get around this? I'm currently counting patches based on _darcs/inventory. Cheers, Andrew
On 10/20/06, Andrew Wilkinson
I have pushed the patches to give us a monotically increasing version number, however there is problem with counting the number of darcs patches to give a version number.
My PC says I'm building version 0.7.0-275 while the buildbots are on 0.7.0-27 - this is because I checked my tree out before the last time the tree was tagged.
Does anyone know of a way to get around this? I'm currently counting patches based on _darcs/inventory.
"darcs optimize --reorder" should help, I think.
On Saturday 21 October 2006 10:47, Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi
"darcs optimize --reorder" should help, I think.
I don't this so, it just makes the patches generated smaller (so might still be a good idea), but won't give a patch total. darcs changes works on my copy, but thats a full one.
Thanks
Neil
Perhaps the timestamp on the most recent patch would be better than the number of patches. It looks like you can get that pretty easily from 'darcs/inventory'. -- Rob Dockins Talk softly and drive a Sherman tank. Laugh hard, it's a long way to the bank. -- TMBG
Hi Robert,
Perhaps the timestamp on the most recent patch would be better than the number of patches. It looks like you can get that pretty easily from 'darcs/inventory'.
We did consider that, but we were worried that versions would end up being too long, plus there is a risk that people will have the wrong date on their computer. If the patch count can't be done easily then thats probably the best thing to do. Thanks Neil
On 10/21/06, Neil Mitchell
Hi
"darcs optimize --reorder" should help, I think.
I don't this so, it just makes the patches generated smaller (so might still be a good idea), but won't give a patch total. darcs changes works on my copy, but thats a full one.
It also usually makes the inventory start from the latest tag...
participants (4)
-
Andrew Wilkinson -
Neil Mitchell -
Robert Dockins -
Samuel Bronson